1.5: Rule contravention, non-compliance and irregularities
9.6: Effective date of judgments and orders
14.8: Filing a notice of appeal

Case Summary

The Appellant, Phoenix Land Ventures Ltd., in an Action involving a contractual dispute, applied to extend the time to file an Appeal. The Appellant submitted that it applied for an extension of time only out of caution, as it appealed in time and did not need an extension. Côté J.A. stated that, although the time limitation to Appeal under the old Rules did not start to run until formal Judgment was entered and served, this led to too much delay, and the language of Rule 14.8(1) deliberately removed the need for an entered Judgment before the limitation started to run. Rule 14.8(1)(b) applies if the Reasons for Decision are issued after Judgment, which is unusual.

His Lordship held that 14.8(1)(a) was applicable, and that the time limitation to appeal started to run when Reasons were given, which could be in the form of a Judgment, Order or Decision. Under Rule 9.6(a), Orders and Judgments are effective when pronounced and before a formal written document is entered. Time starts to run at the time of pronouncement under Rule 14.8(1)(a) and not entry. In this case, time started to run when written reasons from the Judge were issued, and the Appeal was therefore filed late. Justice Côté observed that the delay was short and there was no prejudice. However, the late filing was due to carelessness, and the grounds for Appeal were vague. Under Rule 1.5(4), the Court must not cure any contravention or irregularity unless there is no harm to any Party and the Court can impose a suitable sanction. Côté J.A. allowed the Application if the Applicant paid $4500 into Court, a part of which would be compensated to the Respondent as Costs.

View CanLII Details